6 ms·

Absolutely would not bring it up. California has "ban the box" and as a practical matter: 1. most "boxes" on employment application ask about Felonies not mis

Absolutely would not bring it up. California has "ban the box" and as a practical matter: 1. most "boxes" on employment application ask about Felonies not misdemeanors. 2. I'm not an expert but the few times i've looked into it "criminal background check" is nowhere near as comprehensive as people think. it involves going to each county where you think the person resided and looking up records there. so according to you even if they thought to look in the county where your record is, they wouldn't find anything. https://www.shouselaw.com/california-ban-the-box-laws https://www.shouselaw.com/california-ban-the-box-laws California law still prohibits employers from asking about, or considering, criminal convictions that have been expunged. AB 1008 takes the law a step further. It bars employers from considering any criminal conviction, expunged or not, prior to making a conditional job offer. The law applies to both felony charges and misdemeanor charges in California.

eden_hazard 6y ago
I second this. To OP, background checks are often a lot less comprehensive than you think. And how long have you been an engineer? And how did you prep? Would be a dream for me to get a job there one day.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Oh, yeah. That reminds me: once, I got to the background check stage with a company that specifically mentioned a credit check would be done. At the time, my credit score was in the toilet (like FICO in the 500's, I think), so I was worried, but decided that since there was nothing I could do about it in time to affect the result, I'd just sign and pray. I got the job, with no mention of my then terrible credit score. I have no idea if they even did the check.
  - pyromine 6y ago
    Often that sort of check mostly has to due with checking if you have some type of debt that may impair your integrity. Say you're for some reason indebted to a Chinese bank and applying for a defense job, they're not going to be very happy of that. Yes that's a bit over the top, but generally what those checks are about.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      > TransUnion, a major credit reporting company admitted in public testimony, “we don’t have any research to show any statistical correlation between what’s in somebody’s credit report and their job performance or their likelihood to commit fraud.”[0] As noted earlier in this report, poor credit scores reflect financial distress and racial disparities, not propensity to commit crimes. [1] --- [0]: https://www.demos.org/testimony-and-public-comment/memorandum-new-york-city-employment-credit-checks https://www.demos.org/testimony-and-public-comment/memorandu... [1]: https://www.demos.org/research/bad-credit-shouldnt-block-employment-how-make-state-bans-employment-credit-checks-more https://www.demos.org/research/bad-credit-shouldnt-block-emp...
    - gorgoiler 6y ago
      How does the vetting for debt like that work? Can a company refuse to hire me unless I divulge my private financial details? If I forge a spreadsheet of my accounts, how would they know it wasn’t real?
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        They don’t ask you for a list of accounts, typically. They would check a report from one of the major credit reporting agencies, so, if it doesn’t show up there, they’d probably never see it.
        topkai22 6y ago
        US government background checks explicitly ask about foreign financial holdings, and those investigators check.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        That's why I said "typically." Security clearance checks are a whole different level from your average pre-employment background check.
  - dsl 6y ago
    It's not a credit check like a car dealership would do. The background check may query credit reporting agencies or other financial records to confirm data and expand the search (i.e. you had a credit card issued in a state so they will expand criminal searches to that state). These types of queries fall under laws that govern credit checks, so they have to disclose and obtain permission.
    - commandar 6y ago
      While true, that's not a universal. It's not uncommon for companies in, e.g., finance to run a literal credit check for some positions.
  - _jal 6y ago
    A kind-of similar thing, showing the... less than comprehensive nature of the background checks. At my current job, I was applying from another startup, but before that one, had spent over a decade either self-employed or running my own company. They hired some company (forget who) to check me, and got a call from them. They asked me about my company, which had been dissolved like six years earlier. I said as much, and she asked me if I was sure. I said I was the co-owner, and as such was pretty darn sure. Said OK, and hung up. About an hour later, I get another call from the same person, asking me about my consulting. She did not seem to notice she had just talked to me. I said, yes, I was previously a consultant. She asked who my manager was, and I said I was a one-man shop. She insisted she speak to may manager, apparently not understanding what I was saying. I finally said I self-managed. She accepted that (!) and we hung up. I'm still working here several years later, so it must have been OK. I guess one moral of this story is, if you want to get away with something on a commercial background check, there are worse ideas than listing your own phone number.
    - gorgoiler 6y ago
      That sounds so intrusive. It wouldn’t be amiss, once hired and enough trust has been built, to try to get HR to drop that practice. Companies generally aren’t monsters! They don’t want to break the law, they are risk averse and don’t want to be sued, and want to attract good people. Most worth their salt would be receptive to some constructive criticism about how invasive it is to have unsolicited interrogations from a third party.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    They don’t actually do credit checks, but for some reason, they all have boilerplate language to make you sign your rights away and allow them to anyway. It’s frustrating. I always question them on those, and ask what specifically they will be checking. It usually even has language saying they can contact your neighbors to ask about your character, so I pick that out and say “Waitaminute, you want to talk to my neighbors? That seems a little invasive. What is going on here?” That’s when I get their response in writing about what they are really going to check.
x0x0 6y ago
I think that "Absolutely do not bring it up" may not be the right policy. OP really should talk to an employment lawyer. Note our cheap goodhire background checks scan an approximately 5 page list of courts. We are required to do this by various certifications such as soc2, etc. I would carefully think through bringing it up with the hiring manager. First, because if I were the hiring manager, I'd be much happier if a candidate told me. That way I can think through if this matters for the position or not, and be in a better position to handle internal messaging. The second benefit is it allows OP to control the messaging (I was young / I am an animal rights activist and potential future employer doesn't do animal experimentation / I've changed, etc). If OP doesn't proactively bring it up, OP's future is being decided in a discussion between HR and the hiring manager with zero input from OP.
- kstrauser 6y ago
  I second this so strongly. As a hiring manager, I'd be more than happy to discuss a person's background. For instance, "just so you know, I got arrested for having an ounce of weed in Mississippi". Thanks for letting me know! If that comes up in our background check (which we _have_ to do for regulatory reasons but generally don't care about unless you're a serious felon), I can ignore it. Who cares - it's weed, and it's legal here now. OTOH, if you lied to me and I found out you were busted for a tiny amount of weed, I'm going to burn your application. Not because of the arrest - again, I don't even care about that - but because you've lied to me. At that point I'm not going to trust anything else you tell me. Are you also going to cover your mistakes at work and hope no one notices? Every company is different, so I'm only speaking for myself and not the industry as a whole. But I would infinitely prefer that a candidate tell me this stuff up front than to try and hide it from me. And frankly, if you got arrested for some very cool reason ("I was part of a protest against a white supremacist march!"), it could quite possibly tip the hiring decision in your favor!
  - PopeDotNinja 6y ago
    I'd be willing to share potentially compromising information if I was willing to risk not getting the job and the hiring manager was convincing me that divulging information was advantageous. For example, for jobs that require a security clearance, it's probably best to just divulge everything that won't get you arrested. At a job fair, I met a recruiter who hired for top secret clearance jobs. I asked him how they could possibly find people who had never had smoked weed, and he said they were primary concerned with recency and frequency.
dsl 6y ago
> it involves going to each county where you think the person resided and looking up records there They had an open warrant, which means it hit state databases and shows up in a warrant search. I have no idea what background check system their employer would use (or what level of investigation the job warrants), but a human investigator would absolutely find these records.
actuator 6y ago
I wouldn't be too sure on the second point. I recently went through a background verification check initiated by one of the FAANG company. It was all clear for me but the criminal check report kind of hinted the sources they were hitting up. It seems they were looking up: - Media reports - Court records(they had called the search global, I am not sure if that's just a namesake or if they are hitting up systems of even multiple countries) Additionally, there was identification number of human verifiers on the reports.
- cheez 6y ago
  Yep, same, though not in CA. I had a record but no convictions. It didn't prevent me from getting the job but they did try to use it as a negotiating tactic to lower salary (didn't happen, I also forced them to increase it by 10% at the 3 month mark)
  - oblongx 6y ago
    I really curious what was their tact with that? "We see based on your record that you're not worth as much as we thought..."
    - sq_ 6y ago
      Real reason: "oh, look, we might be able to spend less for this person's work" Tactic: "well, we'd be taking a risk by hiring you, what if you do something bad again? or if this turns in to a PR problem?"
      - freepor 6y ago
        If they refused to hire you I’d be fine with it, but lowballing 10% means they’re not seriously concerned about the risk.
        cheez 6y ago
        They didn't low ball 10%, it was more like 25%.
gorgoiler 6y ago
Wow, according to the shouselaw link (and I’m paraphrasing a lot here) you’ll still need to go through the criminal record wringer if you want to be: - a teacher (or work with children); - a court worker or police officer; or - a farm laborer. I wonder what the story is with that last one? Did a bunch of farmers pay for that to be included in the list, or (less likely) is it there for some reason to protect the laborers?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ken 6y ago
  I'm sure there's lots of inconsistent rules, for various accidental and historical reasons, like any other complex system. I have to get a background check to perform at the my local children's museum, but not at public schools in the same city.
- cronix 6y ago
  I'm guessing because of the large number of undocumented workers in farm labor, which I think the farm would be liable for if caught. I don't recall off the top of my head, but it seems about a year ago several large places got busted. Edit: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/us/mississippi-ice-raids-poultry-plants.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/us/mississippi-ice-raids-...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

eden_hazard 6y ago

I second this. To OP, background checks are often a lot less comprehensive than you think. And how long have you been an engineer? And how did you prep? Would be a dream for me to get a job there one day.

pmiller2 6y ago
Oh, yeah. That reminds me: once, I got to the background check stage with a company that specifically mentioned a credit check would be done. At the time, my credit score was in the toilet (like FICO in the 500's, I think), so I was worried, but decided that since there was nothing I could do about it in time to affect the result, I'd just sign and pray. I got the job, with no mention of my then terrible credit score. I have no idea if they even did the check.
- pyromine 6y ago
  Often that sort of check mostly has to due with checking if you have some type of debt that may impair your integrity. Say you're for some reason indebted to a Chinese bank and applying for a defense job, they're not going to be very happy of that. Yes that's a bit over the top, but generally what those checks are about.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    > TransUnion, a major credit reporting company admitted in public testimony, “we don’t have any research to show any statistical correlation between what’s in somebody’s credit report and their job performance or their likelihood to commit fraud.”[0] As noted earlier in this report, poor credit scores reflect financial distress and racial disparities, not propensity to commit crimes. [1] --- [0]: https://www.demos.org/testimony-and-public-comment/memorandum-new-york-city-employment-credit-checks https://www.demos.org/testimony-and-public-comment/memorandu... [1]: https://www.demos.org/research/bad-credit-shouldnt-block-employment-how-make-state-bans-employment-credit-checks-more https://www.demos.org/research/bad-credit-shouldnt-block-emp...
  - gorgoiler 6y ago
    How does the vetting for debt like that work? Can a company refuse to hire me unless I divulge my private financial details? If I forge a spreadsheet of my accounts, how would they know it wasn’t real?
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      They don’t ask you for a list of accounts, typically. They would check a report from one of the major credit reporting agencies, so, if it doesn’t show up there, they’d probably never see it.
      - topkai22 6y ago
        US government background checks explicitly ask about foreign financial holdings, and those investigators check.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        That's why I said "typically." Security clearance checks are a whole different level from your average pre-employment background check.
- dsl 6y ago
  It's not a credit check like a car dealership would do. The background check may query credit reporting agencies or other financial records to confirm data and expand the search (i.e. you had a credit card issued in a state so they will expand criminal searches to that state). These types of queries fall under laws that govern credit checks, so they have to disclose and obtain permission.
  - commandar 6y ago
    While true, that's not a universal. It's not uncommon for companies in, e.g., finance to run a literal credit check for some positions.
- _jal 6y ago
  A kind-of similar thing, showing the... less than comprehensive nature of the background checks. At my current job, I was applying from another startup, but before that one, had spent over a decade either self-employed or running my own company. They hired some company (forget who) to check me, and got a call from them. They asked me about my company, which had been dissolved like six years earlier. I said as much, and she asked me if I was sure. I said I was the co-owner, and as such was pretty darn sure. Said OK, and hung up. About an hour later, I get another call from the same person, asking me about my consulting. She did not seem to notice she had just talked to me. I said, yes, I was previously a consultant. She asked who my manager was, and I said I was a one-man shop. She insisted she speak to may manager, apparently not understanding what I was saying. I finally said I self-managed. She accepted that (!) and we hung up. I'm still working here several years later, so it must have been OK. I guess one moral of this story is, if you want to get away with something on a commercial background check, there are worse ideas than listing your own phone number.
  - gorgoiler 6y ago
    That sounds so intrusive. It wouldn’t be amiss, once hired and enough trust has been built, to try to get HR to drop that practice. Companies generally aren’t monsters! They don’t want to break the law, they are risk averse and don’t want to be sued, and want to attract good people. Most worth their salt would be receptive to some constructive criticism about how invasive it is to have unsolicited interrogations from a third party.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  They don’t actually do credit checks, but for some reason, they all have boilerplate language to make you sign your rights away and allow them to anyway. It’s frustrating. I always question them on those, and ask what specifically they will be checking. It usually even has language saying they can contact your neighbors to ask about your character, so I pick that out and say “Waitaminute, you want to talk to my neighbors? That seems a little invasive. What is going on here?” That’s when I get their response in writing about what they are really going to check.

x0x0 6y ago

I think that "Absolutely do not bring it up" may not be the right policy. OP really should talk to an employment lawyer. Note our cheap goodhire background checks scan an approximately 5 page list of courts. We are required to do this by various certifications such as soc2, etc. I would carefully think through bringing it up with the hiring manager. First, because if I were the hiring manager, I'd be much happier if a candidate told me. That way I can think through if this matters for the position or not, and be in a better position to handle internal messaging. The second benefit is it allows OP to control the messaging (I was young / I am an animal rights activist and potential future employer doesn't do animal experimentation / I've changed, etc). If OP doesn't proactively bring it up, OP's future is being decided in a discussion between HR and the hiring manager with zero input from OP.

kstrauser 6y ago
I second this so strongly. As a hiring manager, I'd be more than happy to discuss a person's background. For instance, "just so you know, I got arrested for having an ounce of weed in Mississippi". Thanks for letting me know! If that comes up in our background check (which we _have_ to do for regulatory reasons but generally don't care about unless you're a serious felon), I can ignore it. Who cares - it's weed, and it's legal here now. OTOH, if you lied to me and I found out you were busted for a tiny amount of weed, I'm going to burn your application. Not because of the arrest - again, I don't even care about that - but because you've lied to me. At that point I'm not going to trust anything else you tell me. Are you also going to cover your mistakes at work and hope no one notices? Every company is different, so I'm only speaking for myself and not the industry as a whole. But I would infinitely prefer that a candidate tell me this stuff up front than to try and hide it from me. And frankly, if you got arrested for some very cool reason ("I was part of a protest against a white supremacist march!"), it could quite possibly tip the hiring decision in your favor!
- PopeDotNinja 6y ago
  I'd be willing to share potentially compromising information if I was willing to risk not getting the job and the hiring manager was convincing me that divulging information was advantageous. For example, for jobs that require a security clearance, it's probably best to just divulge everything that won't get you arrested. At a job fair, I met a recruiter who hired for top secret clearance jobs. I asked him how they could possibly find people who had never had smoked weed, and he said they were primary concerned with recency and frequency.

dsl 6y ago

> it involves going to each county where you think the person resided and looking up records there They had an open warrant, which means it hit state databases and shows up in a warrant search. I have no idea what background check system their employer would use (or what level of investigation the job warrants), but a human investigator would absolutely find these records.

actuator 6y ago

I wouldn't be too sure on the second point. I recently went through a background verification check initiated by one of the FAANG company. It was all clear for me but the criminal check report kind of hinted the sources they were hitting up. It seems they were looking up: - Media reports - Court records(they had called the search global, I am not sure if that's just a namesake or if they are hitting up systems of even multiple countries) Additionally, there was identification number of human verifiers on the reports.

cheez 6y ago
Yep, same, though not in CA. I had a record but no convictions. It didn't prevent me from getting the job but they did try to use it as a negotiating tactic to lower salary (didn't happen, I also forced them to increase it by 10% at the 3 month mark)
- oblongx 6y ago
  I really curious what was their tact with that? "We see based on your record that you're not worth as much as we thought..."
  - sq_ 6y ago
    Real reason: "oh, look, we might be able to spend less for this person's work" Tactic: "well, we'd be taking a risk by hiring you, what if you do something bad again? or if this turns in to a PR problem?"
    - freepor 6y ago
      If they refused to hire you I’d be fine with it, but lowballing 10% means they’re not seriously concerned about the risk.
      - cheez 6y ago
        They didn't low ball 10%, it was more like 25%.

gorgoiler 6y ago

Wow, according to the shouselaw link (and I’m paraphrasing a lot here) you’ll still need to go through the criminal record wringer if you want to be: - a teacher (or work with children); - a court worker or police officer; or - a farm laborer. I wonder what the story is with that last one? Did a bunch of farmers pay for that to be included in the list, or (less likely) is it there for some reason to protect the laborers?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ken 6y ago
I'm sure there's lots of inconsistent rules, for various accidental and historical reasons, like any other complex system. I have to get a background check to perform at the my local children's museum, but not at public schools in the same city.
cronix 6y ago
I'm guessing because of the large number of undocumented workers in farm labor, which I think the farm would be liable for if caught. I don't recall off the top of my head, but it seems about a year ago several large places got busted. Edit: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/us/mississippi-ice-raids-poultry-plants.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/us/mississippi-ice-raids-...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]